All Cases

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second appeal No. 1212 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 1680 of 2005 Shamrao Krishna Bhosale ..Appellant vs. Housabai Krishna Kasote ..Respondent Shri P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant. Shri Amit Borkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 18th July, 2007 P.C. At the request of Shri Arjunwadkar and with a view to find out the extent of encroachment on the property which can be removed and some workable arrangement can be made at site, stand over for one week. No further adjournment will be granted. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE Second Appeal No.1212 of 2005 with Civil Application No.1680 of 2005 Shamrao Krishna Bhosale ..Appellant vs. Housabai Krishna Kasote ..Respondent Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant. Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 14th August, 2007 P.C. Heard Mr.Arjunwadkar appearing for the appellant and Mr.Borkar appearing for the respondents. The respondent/original plaintiff filed Reg.Civil Suit No.273 of 1994 which has been decreed by the Trial Court on 17th July, 1999. The decree is of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant/original defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession in respect of the suit property and to remove the construction described in para 2 of the plaint. That decree has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court on 11th April, 2005 in Reg.Civil Appeal no.370 of 1999. The appellant/Original Defendant has preferred the present second appeal. The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant in support of the plea that the substantial question of law which arises is that the respondent/original plaintiff was aware of the construction. Once the plaintiff was so aware then she could not have filed the suit after considerable lapse of time. The principle of acquiescence would come into play and, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction should not have been decreed. The Courts below erred in decreeing the same and that is how this Court should entertain the second appeal. The Courts below have relied upon the deposition of the son of the respondent. He has specifically deposed that the city survey no.4 which is the suit property is the house surrounded by open space. C.S.No.3 is open space. Both the properties are situated within the limits of Municipal Council. After tracing the title of the respondents through the Gift Deed and sale deed, it is pointed out that these properties are entered in the name of the respondent/original plaintiff and she is paying the municipal taxes. Thus, the ownership and possession was proved. The Courts below also have relied upon Exh.81 which is a map. The map has been relied upon in addition to the oral deposition of the plaintiff's son and one witness Babu Ramu Mane. This is clear case where encroachment was made by the appellant on certain portion of the respondent's property thereby causing obstruction in the peaceful possession of the respondent/original plaintiff. The Courts below have concluded that the encroachment committed is a very recent one. In such circumstances and when the plea of adverse possession raised on behalf of the appellant/original defendant has been rejected through out, in my view, entertaining the present second appeal would mean reappreciating and reappraising the material on record which is impermissible in law. This is not a case where the plaintiff could be said to have acquiesced in the construction or acts of the respondent/tenant/original defendant. The construction has found to be recent one. It is not a case which is covered by the decision relied upon i.e. A.I.R.1981 Madras 220 (R.S.Muthuswami Gounder Vs. A.Annamalai and others). The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. There is no merit in the second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the second appeal the civil application no.1680 of 2005 does not survive and is -3- disposed of accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2559 OF 2007 Mr.Ravindra M.Vaity and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. Deepak R.Shinde and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.K.S.Patil advocate for Applicants Ms.A.T.Jhaveri A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C. Heard both sides. The applicants-original accused have preferred this application for setting aside the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C.No. 19/M/2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate referred the said case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Senior Police Inspector, Andheri Police Station for investigation and report. The learned APP on instructions states that the police have investigated the said case and thereafter they have submitted report to the Magistrate for grant of "B" Summary. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to entertain the present application. However, liberty is given to the applicants to challenge the order of the Magistrate on the application for "B" Summary, if adverse to them. It is made clear that this application is being disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

Order - Status 5: suresh 908-WP-2265.2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2014 Sakshi Naresh Nagwani @ Neetu Kanayalal Gursahani .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. J.S. Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.M. KANADE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED: JULY 01, 2014 P.C: Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable on 3072014. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the meantime, there shall be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (P.D. KODE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2014 Sakshi N. Nagwani ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunedh Kale a/w. Ms. K.H.Rajani for the respondent no.3. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2015. P.C. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the MECR No.3 of 2013 registered at Rabale Police Station, in pursuance of the order under Sec.156(3) issued by the learned Magistrate in OA No.256 of 2013. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent no.3, due to the differences between the parties, respondent no.3 has filed criminal case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420, 384, 406, 504, 506, 407 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. The learned Judge passed an order under Section 156(3) and thereafter MECR in question is registered against the petitioner. The differences and disputes between the parties were thereafter settled by intervention of mediator and accordingly consent terms were entered into between the parties in Criminal Application No. 743 of 2014. In para 14 and para 22 of the said consent terms both the parties agreed to withdraw the allegations made against each other. The respondent no.3 has also given no objection for quashing of the said MECR. The respondent no.3 also has filed an affidavit dated 12.1.2015. In para 3 he has given no objection for quashing and setting aside the said MECR in pursuance of the consent terms dated 23.12.2014. The respondent no.3 is personally present in the court. He states that he has gone through the consent terms and affidavit and states that he has no objection for quashing the said MECR. He further states that he is giving no objection without any influence or coercion from anybody. In the above facts and circumstances, and in the light of the decision in the case of in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] wherein it is held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.". It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582] , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 11: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2014 Sakshi Naresh Nagwani ….Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and ors. ….Respondents None for the petitioner. Ms. K. H. Rajani, advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 5th MARCH, 2015. P.C.: The matter is placed on board for speaking to the minutes of order dated 12th January, 2015. It is submitted that certain inadvertent mistakes have crept in the said order. The said mistakes are rectified and are, accordingly, read and substituted as under : In paragraph 1, instead of "OA No.256 of 2013", it be read and substituted as "OMA No.658 of 2013". In paragraph 2, line 4, "Section 407" be read and substituted "Section 497". In cause-title as well as in paragraphs 2 and 4, the words "respondent No.3", be read and substituted as "respondent No.4". The order dated 12th January, 2015, stands corrected accordingly. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shubhada S Kadam 1/1

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2012 Mandakini Mohan Gangawane Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Meera Barge, Advocate i/b. C.P. Sengaonkar, for the Appellant. Ms. J.S. Lohokare, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2022 P.C. : Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions as regards the death of the original accused. List the matter tomorrow, 20th July, 2022. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2012 Mandakini Mohan Gangawane Applicant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent •• Ms. Meera Barge i/b. C. P. Sengonkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATE : : 20th JULY, 2022 P.C. : On the last occasion, learned counsel for the Respondent filed an application stating therein that the original accused Mohan Gangawane passed away on 16/05/2020. Learned APP sought short time to take instructions in this regard. She has now filed xerox copy of death certificate of Respondent/accused. Appeal stands abated. Interim application stands disposed of. (M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.) MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date: 2022.07.20 16:42:28 +0530

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna D Joshi For Applicant Mrs.P.P. Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 5th January, 2018 P.C. : Learned APP waives service and seeks time to take instructions. Time as prayed for is granted. Stand over to 10/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna D Joshi For Applicant Ms.Veera Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 10th January, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 29/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 Shri Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Virendra Pethe i/b Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the applicant. Mr. S.R.Agarkar,APP, for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd January, 2018. P.C. : It is submitted that the applicant No.2 has been detected with malignant tumor. The report of Tata Memorial Centre dated 4.1.2018 indicates that the liver lesio biopsy was taken. Biopsy shows high grade malignant tumor. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would give the photocopies of the report to the learned APP during the course of the day. The learned APP to take instructions to that effect. The matter to be listed on 29.1.2018. (SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for Applicant Ms.Veera Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 29th January, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 7th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 12/02/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 12th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 27/02/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J DATE : 27th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 05/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Sarnobat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 Shri Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors.... Applicants.Vs.... Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2018. Vijay Pundalik Patil. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. .. Respondent. Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi for the Applicants in ABA No. 01/18. Mr. Anoop U. Patil, for the Applicant in ABA No. 03/18. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State. $frac{text{CORAM}}{text{DATE}} : underline{P. N. DESHMUKH, J.}$ P. C. : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per telephonic instructions, applicant No. 1 is arrested on 1 st March, 2018. Learned counsel for applicants is not aware of the said fact. Learned counsel for applicant No. 3 submits that applicant has provided his bank accounts with the Investigating Officer and that applicant No. 2 is not arrested in view of oral directions of this Court being a Cancer patient. This statement is also made by Additional (13(14)ABA118 ABA318 Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the applicant in ABA No. 03/2018 submits that as per oral directions of this Court, applicant has submitted his accounts and that his bank accounts are freezed and therefore, submits that applicant be protected by interim protection. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks time for want of instructions as I.O. is not present. Record reveals that notice is issued to Respondent on 5th January, 2018 and time was granted to file affidavit in reply which was further extended on 10th January, 2018 and 29th January, 2018 and thereafter on three occasions, application came to be adjourned for want of time. In these circumstances, as further time is granted to file affidavit in reply, following order is passed. ORDER (i) In the event of arrest of applicant Nos. 1 and 3 in ABA No.01/2018 and applicant in ABA No. 03/2018, in Crime No. 396/2017 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nasik, they shall be released on bail on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. (ii) The above applicants shall attend Investigating Officer for a period of one week from 8th March, 2018. 2/3 (13(14)ABA118 ABA318 (iii) ABA No. 03/2018 be heard along with this application. (iv) Stand over to 19th March, 2018. [ P. N. DESHMUKH , J.]

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 3 OF 2018 Vijay Pundalik Patil … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent *** Mr. Virendra Pethe i/b Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Applicants in ABA. 1/2018. Mr. Anoop Patil, for Applicant in ABA. 3/2018. *** Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2018 PC :- . Learned counsel for Applicants submits that Applicant / accused No.1 in ABA No. 1/2018 was arrested on 1st March, 2018. Learned counsel further submits that Applicant No. 3 for want of knowledge of order dated 5th March, 2018 since not communicated by his counsel has not attended investigating officer for a period of one week from 8th March, 2018. None appears for Applicant No. 1 in ABA. No. 3/2018. Applicant No. 3 in ABA. No. 1/2018 to attend Investigating Officer for a period of one week and shall co-operate with the investigation. S. O. to 2nd April, 2018. Interim order to continue till next date.

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTI.BAIL APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam 2. Anil Navnath Shinde 3. Sarangdhar Yadav Pansare .. Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent with ANTI.BAIL APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2018 Vijay Pundalik Patil .. Applicant vs 1. State of Maharasjtra 2.The Sarkarwada Police Stn. Dist Nasik .. Respondents Nr.Balkrishna D.Joshi for Applicants in ABA NO.01/2018 Mr.Anoop U.Patil for Applicant in ABA No.3/2018 Mr.Sandeep Barve for Intervener Ms.Veera Shinde Addl.Public Prosecutor for State CORAM : P. N.DESHMUKH,, J. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2018. P.C.: Learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Barve submits that he be granted one week's time to file an application to intervene in this application. In that view of the matter, stand over to 11.4.2018. Interim orders to continue till the adjourned date. (P.N.DESHMUKH, J.) rng

Order - Status 27: Sarnobat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Mr. Virendra Pethe i/by Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Applicants. Mr. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 11th APRIL, 2018. P. C. : Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant No.1 Vijay Ramdas Nikam is already arrested and as such submits that application be allowed to be withdrawn against him as same is rendered infructuous and further contended that applicant No. 2-Anil Navnath Shinde has expired as he was suffering from Cancer. Learned APP on instructions from investigating officer confirms the same. Learned counsel submits that applicant No. 3-Sarangdhar Yadav Pansare do not want to prosecute this application and on his instruction seeks leave to withdraw the said application. In view of submissions advanced as aforesaid, application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 stand disposed of, as application filed by applicant No.1 is rendered infructuous, since arrested, and applicant No. 2 is dead. Application of applicant No. 3 is allowed to be withdrawn as prayed for and as such stands dismissed. Anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. In view of above, application No. 430/2018 for intervention is become infructuous and accordingly disposed of. [ P. N. DESHMUKH , J.]

Order - Status 7: ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6006 OF 2011 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mahesh Agawekar i/b Ms.Anamik Malhotra for the petitioner Mr.P.G.Sawant 'B' Panel for respondent no.1 Mr.J.D.Khairnar for respondent no.2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 1st AUGUST, 2011 PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is taken for final hearing and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner original respondent challenges the order dt. 6.5.2011 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, below Ex.U2 filed by respondent no.2 for interim relief to stay the operation and implementation of transfer order dt. 16.12.2010 issued by the petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik. Respondent no.2 is working with the petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik as Desk Officer. Initially, on account of misconduct he was suspended by order dt.1.9.2010. Thereafter, respondent no.2 made representation to the petitioner. Considering respondent no.2's representation, petitioner issued the order dt. 15.12.2010 reinstating respondent no.2 in his original post subject to departmental enquiry. Thereafter, on the next date, petitioner issued transfer order dt.16.12.2010 transferring respondent no.2 on said post to Panchayat Samiti, Surgana. Respondent no.2 joined their as Desk Officer and worked for 4/5 months. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2011 before the Industrial Court under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 along with application for interim relief under section 30(2). In the said complaint, respondent no.2 contended that he is suffering 40% disability and same is declared by the Medical Board as per certificate dt.3.3.2005. Thereafter, on the basis of Government Resolution dt.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004, he is entitled to be posted near his home town i.e. at Nasik. The said interim application was allowed by leaned Member, Industrial Court by impugned order dt.6.5.2011 and directed petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik to allow respondent no.2 to work at Nasik or near Nasik as per Government Resolution No.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004. Hence, the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Member of Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that respondent no.2 by way of interim relief is entitled to stay the operation and implementation of the transfer order dt. 16.12.2010. He further submits that initially respondent no.2 was suspended on 1.9.2010 and thereafter, considering his applications, they reinstated him on his original post by order dt.15.12.2010 subject to departmental enquiry. He further submits that departmental enquiry is going on against respondent no.2. He further submits that initially respondent no.2 joined the services as per transfer order dt.16.12.2010 at Panchayat Samiti, Surgana without complaining about his disability and thereafter, filed complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2011. He submits that the main complaint is pending for hearing and final disposal. The Industrial Court by interim relief allowed indirectly prayer in the main complaint itself. Therefore, impugned order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, dt.6.5.11 is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the present petition. He submits that as per Government Resolution dt.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004 respondent no.2 is entitled to the posting near his home town. He submits that respondent no.2 has his house at Nasik. Since beginning he has stayed there. He submits that the Village Surgana is about 50 to 60 kms from Nasik and therefore, it is very difficult for him to attend his duty there. He submits that after joining at Surgana he noticed that due to 40% disability he is facing several difficulties and therefore, he preferred the present complaint. I have gone through the G.R. dt.15.4.04 and 15.12.04. I have also gone through the reinstatement letter dt.15.12.2010 and transfer order dt.16.12.2010. It is to be noted that initially respondent no.2 was suspended in the year 2010. On his request, petitioner reinstated him on 15.10.10 subject to departmental enquiry. Not only that his main complaint challenging the transfer order dt.15.12.2010 is pending. By interim relief learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik indirectly allowed the respondent no.2's main complaint itself. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik erred in staying operation and implementation of the Tribunal's order dt.16.12.2010 directing petitioner Zilla Parishad, Nasik to allow respondent no.2 to work at Nasik or near Nasik as per G.R. dt.15.4.2010 and 15.12.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that at present, no post is available at Nasik or near Nasik. Considering these facts, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik below Exh.U2 in complaint ULP 108 o 2010 is set aside. 10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, hearing of complaint (ULP) No. 108 of 2011 is expedited. 11.Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED,J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 802 OF 2014 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 16754 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. P. R. Moses for the applicant. Mr. S.k. Sonawane for the respondent corporation. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 30/07/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This civil application is preferred by original plaintiff for condonation of 35 days delay in filing the Appeal From Order against the Order dated 27.03.2014 passed by Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai in draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 804 of 2014. 3 Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and averment made in civil application, I am satisfied that applicant has made out the case for allowing the civil application. 4 Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 10(i), which reads thus: "(i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the present application." 5 Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2007 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.69 OF 2001 Warsha...Applicant @ Elee Naren B. Goregaonkar V/s. Naren...Respondent Bhagwant Rao Goregaonkar Mr.Anshuman Jagtap, Advocate, h/f. Jyoti N. Shah, for the applicant. Ms.Shilpa Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2007. P.C.: 1.The applicant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.1,47,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon. 2.The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [J.N. PATEL, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1153 OF 2004 Shri Ramchandra Krishnaji Shelke (since deceased, through legal heirs) Ankush Ramchandra Shelke 7 ors. ... Appellants V/s Shri Laxman Krishnaji Shelke & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sachin Chavan holding for Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the appellants. None for the respondents. ALONGWITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2005 Shri Laxman Krishnaji Shelke & ors. ... Appellants V/s Ramchandra Krishnaji Shelke (since deceased, through his L.Rs.) 1(a) Sonabai Ramchandra Shelke & ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.A. Udgikar for the appellants. None for the respondents. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2005 P.C.: Both appeals are being heard and disposed of by this common order as they arise out of common judgment passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No.18 of 1989 and was disposed of by the appellate Court by order dated 5.4.2004 with certain modifications in the lower Court's order. The plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 had referred R.C.A. No. 58 of 1993 and R.C.A. No. 58 of 1993 against the judgment passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for the partition of the lower appellate Court and disposed of both appeals by common judgment, whereas Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1993 by original defendant No.1 claiming for certain properties in the suit for self-acquired property was dismissed. Whereas, plaintiff's Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1993 was partly allowed with modification with regard to the quantum of share of the respective parties. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals. Perused the record. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/3 share from the suit properties bearing Gat Nos. 77, 435, 1450, 236/1 and 1615 of Village Paragaon, Tal. Daund on the ground 2 that those were ancestral properties and he had 1/3 share therein. Defendants contested the suit inter-alia submitting that part of the suit properties was their self-acquired property. It was also contended that there was previous partition in the year 1964 with regard to certain properties involved in the suit and, therefore, their properties cannot be the subject matter to the partition as prayed for and sought dismissal of the suit. The learned Trial Judge adjudicated the dispute on merits and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he had 1/3 share in the suit properties Gat No.77, 435, 1450 and 1615 of Village Paragaon, Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune and hence he also held that defendants 1 and 6 are also entitled for their 1/3 share from the suit properties and decreed the suit. The appeal was carried to the District Court at Baramati. The learned Addil. District Judge, after hearing both parties came to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the defendant No.1 was liable to be dismissed as he did not prove part of the suit properties as he did not prove that part of the suit 3 property was self-acquired property and modified the decree in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the extent that instead of 1/3 share, it was held that party had 1/5 share therein and disposed of the appeal. Hence the present appeal. At the outset, it may be noted that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 submitted that he was serving Post & Telegraph Department and had purchased suit property Gat No.77, 435 and 1450 for his own income for consideration of his being Karta and, therefore, those properties were self-acquired properties. However, both the Courts below have found absolutely no evidence in support of this contention raised on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.1 and his plea to that extent was dismissed. On the other hand, the plaintiff came with the case that defendant had relinquished his share in the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff would get 1/3 share in the suit properties. However, the lower appellate Court found that there is absolutely no evidence of relinquishment of his suit properties to 4 defendant No.7 and, as such, the plea of the plaintiff that he had 1/3 share in the suit properties was rejected and it was held that parties have 1/5 share in the suit property and, and as such the decree was modified and appeal was allowed. In view of this factual matrix, there is absolutely no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in both appeals as they are based on factual aspects of the evidence and, as such, I hold that both appeals are devoid of any merits and hence both appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1607 of 2004 in Second Appeal No. 1153 of 2004 also stands dismissed with no order as to costs. .....